If you don’t believe in coincidences, global warming or common sense gun
confiscation controls, butt you DO believe that we really DID put a man on the moon, you might find the following coincidental events suspect:
- COINCIDENCE #1, Monday, 6/27: Both Bubba and Lynchin’ Loretta find themselves on the tarmac at Phoenix airport with time to kill. Bubba, yearning to chat about his new grandkid and golf, saunters on over and spends a half hour with the AG - who has no grandkids and doesn’t play golf, so he did most of the talking. The subject of the FBI investigation into his wife’s
crimessmall mistakes in handling our government’s most secret information never came up; nor did anything else related to Hilz future selection for AG and/or candidates for appointment to the Supremes.
- COINCIDENCE #2, Friday, 7/1: Lynchin’ Loretta announces that she made a small mistake in meeting with Bubba because it might
proveimply that the game is riggedthe optics are not ideal, and that she will side step direct involvement and defer to the FBI and career prosecutors at the conclusion of the Clinton email investigationsecurity review. She will likely accept their recommendation. Ok, she can’t really imagine why she wouldn’t accept their recommendation. Unless she doesn’t. In case they recommend the wrong thing.
- COINCIDENCE #3, Tuesday, 7/5: Barry jumps on board the Hillary train and travels with the presumptive nominee to a campaign event in North Carolina. Hilz and Barry spend most of the time complimenting each other on their respective
intelligencesmarts, skills, and service to the American people before promising a chicken in every pot, forgiveness of all college loans and a bunch of other free stuff. Meanwhile, back in DC, FBI Director James “my homey” Comey announces that he will NOT recommend that the Justice Department prosecute Hillary for her crimessmall mistakes in handling our government’s most secret information. He comes to this conclusion after describing in great detail, and convincingly, the crimes she committed. He concludes she didn’t mean to commit any crimes, so -you know the drill - what difference, at this point, does it make? Comey also insists that neither Lynchin’ Loretta nor Barry Obama knew of this decision or what he was going to say.
And, COINCIDENTALLY, Andrew McCarthy also learned something. He wrote this regarding James Comey’s decision not to recommend prosecution of Hilz for the
crimes she committed little mistakes she made:
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.
It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.
Frankly, I think Andrew is grasping at “straws” here -
butt what the heck, it’ll be fun…I’ll play along for awhile.
Cross-Posted on Patriot Action Network